I have never aspired to be a musician, although I am very artistic. I am bad at singing and never enjoyed dabbling at playing an instrument. But I enjoy listening to music tremendously and I always wondered if being a musician would improve my experience as a listener. It seems to me that musicians (good ones) would have a lot more expertise in sound, what is good quality sound, a good system, a high fidelity speaker.... but I have never seen any proof. Am I just imagining it? Are good musicians mediocre listeners? Are they not obsessed with good sound? Any musicians out there to comment? One example I know is the
Cambridge Soundworks Mick Fleetwood Speaker System, which I finally purchased last year, I knew my collection would not be complete without it. It's evidence of great talents crossing paths: a genious speaker designer Henry Kloss, and Mick Fleetwood, one of the greatest drummers of the century (and the previous one). But I don't see musicians weighing in on what are good systems are, how much is it worth spending and what to focus on. It's much more like rich douchebags bragging about the price of their systems on these forums.
Were there a way to compare a thousand Classical Musicians to a thousand rock players perhaps 20 rockers would compare and perhaps 5 in the upper area .
mahgister puts it well and as an extension of philbarone’s succinct comment, “musicians listen to the content of the music before the sound of it”:
I believe that I acknowledged that well chosen (!) high end gear can make performance values (content) more obvious, but that it wasn’t absolutely necessary to appreciate the musical message and that the need for this varied depending on the listener and his priorities. I also said that none of this is a judgment of how anyone chooses to or is able to enjoy the listening experience; it’s a personal call. This is what I wrote:
**** Of course, well chosen (!!!) high end equipment makes those performance values more obvious, but the “necessity” for this has to be weighed against a given listener’s ability to hear and appreciate them if a general comment about the necessity can be made. ****
Yes, as you suggested the content of the music is obviously communicated via sound. However, a distinction (conscious or not) can be made between certain aspects of the overall sound. Some of these are musical content and some are not. The aspects of the sound that I find are sometimes the focal point for some listeners have little or nothing to do with the musical content. These things can be subjectively positive or negative depending on the listener and are what I described as the “ear candy” aspects of high end audio (the sound):
Sound staging and its effects (realistic or not), hyper detail and air-less separation of instruments, exaggerated high end passing off as “accuracy”, overblown bass, bass that is too dry, overly thick midrange passing off as “warmth” or “musicality”. These and other aspects of sound have nothing to do with musical content. Sometimes, depending on the listener, focusing on these can distract from the musical content:
A flute blending beautifully with a muted trumpet in a perfect unison line, a seamless crescendo by a string section, “is the bass player too relaxed for the drummer’s back beat?”, “did the piano player add the flatted 9th to that dominant chord?”, a singer’s expressivity, “is the bass player staying away from the piano player’s left hand?”, the guitar player bending the pitch (to use your example). These and many other musical considerations are things that remain obvious even when sitting away from the sweet spot and are what are referred to in the comment “musicians listen to musical content before the sound of it”.
In my experience crappy equipment does a much better job of destroying sound than it does destroying musical content.
I find much more to appreciate on a good system, though, and will try to keep a good system as long as I can hear, which may not be all that much longer.
From around the are of 8 to well into my 30's I had worked with and around entertainers/musicians. I can not remember a single one that put any effort into a decent sound system. On numerous occasions after a long studio session we would transfer a stereo copy onto one format or another then head to my house, where I would play the tunes for the band, so that could hear what it sounded like in a "real" home environment. Most of them, (if they actually had any hearing left) would just look at each other and query "did it sound good?" I've had many well known artists over for a listen and very few exceptions cared about that aspect. Generally after a few sessions like that, normally they would just let me cut a safety copy, of bring some of my gear to a gig and run a board recording. Over the years, I was able to amass a sizeable collection of "one of a kind" recordings. They trusted me enough not to "bootleg" anything I was allowed to take home.
I'm a musician. I prefer stereo systems that are true to the source in both my studio and listening rooms. With that criteria, active ATCs are a no brainer, with pro monitors in the studio and consumer towers in the main listening room.
This discussion has gone down a few roads; as a (working! still!!) professional musician [AFM local member, orchestral musician, free lance, handful of recordings and commercial stuff, aka-the studio isn't unfamiliar] I'm also an audiophile with a dedicated music room hosting JRDG electronics, VPI TT, Maggie 3.7i and Tannoy Monitor Gold's. It's true: musicians (and I'll lump them all together: rock, jazz, classical) don't universally have great-to-fantastic playback systems. I do; I know musicans that do. However if you look at the percentage of fine playback systems present in (lets use the orchestra I play in, or one like it as an example) the percentage probably is similar to "the general public that likes music" and how many of them have decent playback rigs. I think the comments above regarding musicians and what we listen for, and 'content vs fidelity' is spot on - so I won't bother to write any more on it. Well said. I will add a critique: musicians NEED to listen more and I"m continutally amazed at how many don't listen either to the classic recordings or keep up with what's new. I'll go one step farther-if it's listening through some speaker on their cell phone or cruddy earbuds they are not getting 100% out of the exercise. I find my professional colleagues, especially more experienced ones, stop listening and exploring at some point. I can tell the ones that haven't - and they are better off for it! In music school we all take ear training (that's how to identify chords, intervals, what is in tune, a healthy dose of sight singing too); there are plenty of classes which encourage listening to recordings, but it needs to be taught (and isn't usually) how to listen for content, performance AND fidelity. We spend hours and $$$$ trying to get the best sound possible from our instruments of choice, live, yet for many of us the "recording" is what remains as testament to what we did. In the last CD which I was part of, I was fascinated by the custom-modded Neumann tube mics (in a Decca-tree arrangement). The recording engineer/producer had some wonderful stories about that rig. Likewise the final product was great. I think I was the only person to take an interest in the tube-drivers and mics, but most members appreciated the sound quality of the final product (further still, a few never listened to it! That's another story, and not at all uncommon.) I could write on-and-on why musicians don't listen (but should) but I gotta go practice. :) seriously. I do. I don't get to turn my rig on near as much as I'd like during the symphony season. Even when I do have a little time, sometimes my ears are just fatigued. 2020 allowed a bit more time.
Great topic. i've always wondered just the same thing. i've listened to some great songs/scores that were recorded / engineered poorly and came to the conclusion that the artist just doesn't care or only listens to music through his phone - like 99 percent of the world does. I've also listened to some mediocre tunes that sound wonderful and it makes me think the artist is an audiophile and really cares about using talented musicians, engineers and production.
Ok, as a professional musician, recording artist and college music professor (jazz saxophone and I’m also a symphony clarinetist) I’ll chime in. My system is always evolving but atm it consists of:
my start in the hobby came in my junior year of music school at U of Miami. I started going in some of the Sound Advice stores that were still around in Florida in the 90’s and ventured into the more expensive rooms where I found B&W, Krell, Conrad Johnson and Apogee. I was immediately smitten, most notably with the combo of CJ and Apogee speakers. I remember bringing in some Keith Jarrett to play on that system and my tiny brain 🧠 was blown. From there I started to save some of my gig money to buy my first good system from Sound Advice which was Kef Ref 102/2 and all Adcom Separates. Served me well for many years. i have found that a lot of musician friends have only heard high quality playback in a studio, at least until I invite them over and then usually they are hooked. I’ve converted a number of jazz and classical musicians into audiophiles lol. There are exceptions of course. I think one would be music professors who usually have more resources and time for this hobby, and some of the more successful musicians in my field. When John Faddis came to be a guest artist at our music school a few years ago, he came over my house for a listening session as he wanted to hear my Tektons. He has some older top end B&W speakers and he also talked about Ron Carter’s system which is relatively high end but Faddis didn’t love the sound of it. I also have a few other accomplished musician friends who are audiophiles. I think once the audio bug bites us, sometimes we get pretty deep into it as we really value the realistic timbre of live instruments.
I've have met and /or have been friends with many musicians over the years. Folks from Indie bands such as, Ditch Croaker , Wall of Voodoo and Fountains of Wayne to Phil Lesh of the Dead and Phillip Glass. My oldest niece used to baby sit for Tony Visconti, you get the idea.
Few of them had anything remarkable at home in the way of playback...
I think when you "Make Music" you don't really spend that much time or money on re-producing music. That said, Brian Eno told me that "Non musicians are great listeners" So ,for people like me, I spend money on gear that will give me goose bumps because I can't play anything that will give me goose bumps.
There is more than one way to appreciate music. There is somewhat different cognitive equipment developed through the process of becoming a composer, arranger or performer.
A high level audio engineer also has specialized cognitive equipment. Among the audio engineers I've worked with there are skills specific to live sound that are distinct from studio tracking, mixing or mastering. Audiophile listeners also have specialized cognitive equipment. They're all good, but there is a tendency for people to underestimate skills they do not possess.
A classical pianist can listen to a performance of Vladimir Horrowitz on a mediocre stereo and really enjoy it. They know in minute detail what a really good concert grand piano, tuned and voiced by a world class technician, sounds like.They also have the score stored (and can see it), along with a bunch of other information on harmony, articulation, balance, phrasing, dynamics, fingering etc. They also know that even a single change of fingering can shift the feel of a phrase. They may have also played that particular piece thousands, or even tens of thousands, of times. (Daniel Beremboim, admits that in his practicing he spends more than 90% of his time practicing nuances that less than one percent of his concert audience can even hear.) In a similar way a high level jazz pianist will have listened to the music they consider formative with an intensity that verges on vengeance. They'll put the recording on a slow-downer, slow it down to 20%, then save it in a file, then slow down that file to 20%. From there they will filter out all the other frequencies they aren't interested in and focus on and transcribe the finest, quietest nuances that you cannot possibly hear in the native unaltered recording (because they get covered up by the ensemble). They'll internalize that until it becomes fundamental to the way they practice.
Turns out human brains can use little bits of cognitive equipment
from a wide array of skill sets to modify perception. In the case of
music, a listener's brain can zoom in or even clean up the signal so that what they hear is better than the original.
Please don't get caught up in the equivalence of chest pounding routines. Your kids could distinguish between songs in major and minor keys before the age of two. That's cool. But don't let it blind you to all the other nuances in the music you're listening to.
I spent my childhood fascinated by music, played piano, trumpet and euphonium through school, studied at a major music conservatory, joined one of the top military bands in Washington, D.C., learned trombone and all of the recorder family, left the service to join a ballet orchestra for several years and then spent the last 25 years of my playing career in a major symphony orchestra before another 25 years working as a recording engineer. Throughout most of this, from about 1956 forward, I was immersed in music and was there when the term "audiophile" was coined. The first time I heard a really good audio system was when I was in music conservatory ---- and it made a deep impression. I did my almost obligatory passage through Dynaco amps & preamps, Bogen-Lenco turntables, Bozak speakers, Tandberg reel-to-reel recorders, McIntosh tube amps and preamps and never stopped looking for something a little bit better---- adjusted to my income. I have heard systems owned by musician friends of mine that were truly abysmal, but they rationalized that they heard what they needed to hear and their musical ear filled in the missing ingredients. I understood their rationale perfectly, but still pursued that extra special experience that a truly fine system can deliver. I'm pretty much still in that mode, but retirement, and the change in yearly income has affected my enthusiasm for improving my system. Some of the components that I acquired along my journey are still in use in what I consider to be the best system I've ever owned. I love a good "tweak" as much as the next guy, and I still experiment with simple things like turntable isolation and different cables, but with declining hearing I still hear everything that gives me pleasure ---- and THAT gives me pleasure ! Mega-systems with ground shaking bass and ear-shredding treble are not a part of any of the musical world I traveled in and are, to my ear, simply gross exaggerations of what is found in the sound of natural musical instruments. Sure, it is possible to amplify sounds to a degree that can shatter glass, but in my book, that ain't music. To those who seek out such --- more power to you ! That is why they are called audiophiles, not musi-philes. There is nothing like being able to pull out one of the many hundreds of recordings I did as an engineer and listen to the honesty of what I originally heard represented in its natural glory ! No thundering bass, because it doesn't exist in the real world unless you are talking about a pipe organ. Only an amplified instrument can provide it. No stand-up bass fiddle can push out that much sound without the help of a hefty amp and speaker. It's a fact. Not to say that the resulting sound isn't enjoyable, but it's not natural. Now that every instrument seems to have its own clip-on microphone it is not really the listener's fault that the natural sound of every instrument has been compromised to a degree of unintelligibility ! Such is state of much music today. Don't count me in !
There is nothing like being able to pull out one of the many hundreds of recordings I did as an engineer and listen to the honesty of what I originally heard represented in its natural glory ! No thundering bass, because it doesn’t exist in the real world unless you are talking about a pipe organ. Only an amplified instrument can provide it. No stand-up bass fiddle can push out that much sound without the help of a hefty amp and speaker. It’s a fact. Not to say that the resulting sound isn’t enjoyable, but it’s not natural. Now that every instrument seems to have its own clip-on microphone it is not really the listener’s fault that the natural sound of every instrument has been compromised to a degree of unintelligibility ! Such is state of much music today. Don’t count me in !
Very interesting....
It is the reason why some audiophile unable to control their acoustic crave for subwoofers and dont give a dam about musical timbre...
They listen sound effects and not music....
Someone called my system because i dont connect the only woofer i had a battery radio sound system...
@mahgister, "They listen sound effects and not music...."
That’s all too easily done. Especially at shows where you go from room to room hoping not to have missed anything of significance.
There just isn’t time to sit and listen for more than 20 minutes or so unless you only want to check out a few of the rooms.
So you sit down take a good look at the ancillary equipment and room size etc and then try to get an idea on whichever musical parameters you are most interested in.
For me if a system sounds tonally ’bleached out’ then I tend to leave at the first musical break. In my experience some very high priced systems, despite excelling in dynamics and bandwidth, have often fallen into that camp.
Anyway it looks like the UK Show may well be on later this year.
Of course it may still depend upon the imaginations of various politicians and their so-called health advisers...
@frogman“tonally
bleached out”. Great description that I use often. “Gray”. Can’t stand
that type of sound. Instrumental sounds have a lot of natural color.
I borrowed that off @prof. He has written some excellent posts here and is usually very precise when it comes to describing timbre and tonal colour reproduction.
Even after nearly 40 years of listening to various systems I still think that instrumental colour is one of the most difficult things for any of them to reproduce.
So many of them nowadays just cannot get close. Or even seem to try.
As much as it pains me to have to give Apple any credit I cannot fault the iPad 2 on the grounds of failing to reproduce timbre and instrumental colour.
There's an app on there that features some 60 musical instruments that my kids would sometimes play with.
The tonality would be almost uncanny, and that tiny speaker could certainly put many a full size one to shame.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
